4 ms·

Instead of jumping to conclusions, I think we should just wait for the body cam footage to become available. While not perfect, it will almost definitely tell

by nkurz 4y ago

Instead of jumping to conclusions, I think we should just wait for the body cam footage to become available. While not perfect, it will almost definitely tell a more clearer story than the unsubstantiated claims we've heard so far. Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise by some facts beyond police testimony. There are simply too many cases of police lying to protect each other for their testimony to be accorded much if any weight, and it's well known that the costs for honest police who testify against the transgressions of corrupt police are extremely high. The police had the ability to record exactly what happened. If there decided not to do so, we should presume they didn't want the details of what happened to come out, and we should assume that all police testimony without corroborating hard evidence is coordinated and false.

gruez 4y ago
> Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise by some facts beyond police testimony. Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we should assume that the cops were the bad guys and the activists were the good guys. But you can't have it both ways. If the activists were known to be dangerous, then we shouldn't assume that the cops were engaging in "murder". For instance, I doubt that The Guardian or many anti-police commentators would be decrying the lack of bodycam footage if they were raiding a cartel compound. On the flip side, if the activists weren't known to be dangerous, then your argument for "the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions" falls apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding.
- nkurz 4y ago
  > Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding. Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? I think normalizing a presumption that the police are hiding something (even if this is not true) is the most (and possibly only) effective means getting to somewhere better than where we are today. I genuinely have no idea what happened in this case, but in the absence of video evidence many people are going to presume the worst, and I can't prove that they are wrong. Regardless of whether the police acted appropriately in this instance, if we want to preserve respect for legitimate police authority (and I think it's important that we do) I think we need to force the police to document their interactions rather than demanding they always being taken at their word.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? Making an honest effort to convince lawmakers and voters that we need more accountability in the form of bodycams? I know it's hard, but it's certainly going to be more effective than being intellectually dishonest by pretending that every police shooting without a bodycam involves police malfeasance. I use pretend, because I think even the most diehard bodycam proponent doesn't seriously think that every (or even most) police shooting has police acting maliciously. Doing so basically amounts to chanting "ACAB", which is great for signaling to your fellow activist friends that you also hate cops, but isn't going change hearts and minds. Remember, most americans trust the police[1], so chanting stuff like "ACAB" or "assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise" is only going to alienate them. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-tru...

by nkurz 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

> Wait! You say there is no body cam footage? That the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions? Then that's easy too: assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise by some facts beyond police testimony. Dangerous arrest? They weren't raiding a cartel den. They were evicting protesters/activists from a forest. You then argue that absent any evidence, we should assume that the cops were the bad guys and the activists were the good guys. But you can't have it both ways. If the activists were known to be dangerous, then we shouldn't assume that the cops were engaging in "murder". For instance, I doubt that The Guardian or many anti-police commentators would be decrying the lack of bodycam footage if they were raiding a cartel compound. On the flip side, if the activists weren't known to be dangerous, then your argument for "the police went into the woods to make a dangerous arrest without any attempt to document their actions" falls apart. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding.

nkurz 4y ago
> Don't get me wrong, I'm pro body cams and think they should be present in cases like this, but assuming every instance without bodycam is police acting in bad faith is just political grandstanding. Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? I think normalizing a presumption that the police are hiding something (even if this is not true) is the most (and possibly only) effective means getting to somewhere better than where we are today. I genuinely have no idea what happened in this case, but in the absence of video evidence many people are going to presume the worst, and I can't prove that they are wrong. Regardless of whether the police acted appropriately in this instance, if we want to preserve respect for legitimate police authority (and I think it's important that we do) I think we need to force the police to document their interactions rather than demanding they always being taken at their word.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Do you have a better way of changing police policy to require the use of body cams in situations like this? Making an honest effort to convince lawmakers and voters that we need more accountability in the form of bodycams? I know it's hard, but it's certainly going to be more effective than being intellectually dishonest by pretending that every police shooting without a bodycam involves police malfeasance. I use pretend, because I think even the most diehard bodycam proponent doesn't seriously think that every (or even most) police shooting has police acting maliciously. Doing so basically amounts to chanting "ACAB", which is great for signaling to your fellow activist friends that you also hate cops, but isn't going change hearts and minds. Remember, most americans trust the police[1], so chanting stuff like "ACAB" or "assume it's murder unless they can prove otherwise" is only going to alienate them. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-tru...